Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
AB503 targets utility‑wire theft; sponsors say amendments remove Department of Corrections fiscal note and counties expect savings
Summary
Assembly Bill 503 would create penalties for possession or purchase of utility wire and make it unlawful to tamper with critical electrical infrastructure; sponsors say local governments expect millions in annual savings from avoided repairs.
Assemblymember Salina Torres Fawcett (D–District 3) presented AB503, a measure prompted by copper‑wire thefts that local governments and utilities say have caused safety risks and repeated infrastructure damage.
Torres Fawcett said the bill would criminalize willful tampering with, removing, damaging or destroying critical electrical infrastructure to obtain utility wire and would prohibit possession or purchase of utility wire except in specified circumstances. She told the committee the measure was the product of more than a year of work with local governments, law enforcement, public defenders, telecommunication companies, public utilities and the scrap metal industry.
Sponsor and supporters cited fiscal effects. Joanna Jacob, representing Clark County, said Clark County expects a significant savings in repair costs; testimony from the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) put NDOT’s savings at about $4.8 million per biennium in costs currently spent to repair copper‑wire theft damage. At the hearing Torres Fawcett said a Department of Corrections fiscal note had been removed as of May 15 in the first reprint of the bill.
Industry and municipal stakeholders testified in support: Warren Hardy (SA Recycling), Taylor Avery (Vegas Chamber), Shelly Capro (Charter Communications), Marco Rauda (Las Vegas Recycling), and Anthony Ruiz (Ambien Energy) all urged support and cited public‑safety and fiscal benefits. NDOT’s communications director, Joe Harrington, testified to the agency’s biennial repair costs. There was no opposition testimony at the hearing.
What’s next: The committee heard support testimony and closed the hearing; sponsors said the bill was modeled on a prior catalytic converter law and that local governments anticipate annual savings in repair costs if the bill becomes law.
